How much of the Balkans did the Ottomans actually conquer?

AFAIK it comes down to a mix of relatively recent population movements, the light touch of the millet system, and the Ottoman method of enforcing religious supremacy to explain why there aren’t so many Muslims/Turks in ex-Ottoman Europe as you’d expect.

Quite a lot of European Muslims fled or were forcibly extradited to Turkey during the final decades of the Ottoman Empire. The nationalistic revolutions were terrifying to these populations, many of whom were actively targeted by the revolutionaries. Many of the revolutionaries were not much better than armed thugs anyway, especially when not part of foreign Great Power meddling, meaning that Muslims were acceptable targets for disproportionate violence.

The millet system in the centuries before the age of nationalism hampered conversion effectively as it allowed the Orthodox and other Christian populations to continue practice of their faith without direct repression, which allowed their cultures to stay similar as well.

Lastly, the Ottoman methods of promoting Islam involved less of a focus on conversion and more of a focus on imperial superiority IMO. The devshirme system was arguably an effective propagandistic and political tool but hardly served to endear Islam to the nation’s Christian population.

As for European (Great Power) bias against the Ottoman Empire, you’re completely correct. During the 19th century the GPs came to feel that they were suffering the Ottomans to exist and began to play up the Empire’s flaws as part of their own imperial ambitions.

EDIT: There are significant populations of Muslims/Turks in certain narrow regions of the Balkans, especially in the southern parts. Some of these are under active cultural suppression. One example is in Western Thrace where they are stubbornly referred to as the “Muslim minority” despite being clearly specifically Turkish and have governmental interference in their religious leadership IIRC.
There are also descendants of ethnic Greeks ( Thrace, orginally also in Northern Macedonia), Bulgarians, South Slavs (Bosnia,also in Croatia) who practice Islam.
 
I think the easiest way to answer this question is to ask: Do you think Skanderberg's forces felt conquered post defeat?

To which I think the simplest answer is yes, now merely apply that to everyone up to Hungary, and you have your answer. The fact that few people are still Muslim has little to do with the basic fact that the Ottomans at one point or another conquered the Balkans, furthermore the fact they couldn't hold it doesn't mean they didn't conquer it. If you were to tell a Zulu or an Indian that they weren't conquered by the British because they aren't Anglican, and don't speak English, they would think you are retarded. The same is true of the Balkans, fundamentally the Ottomans entered the Balkans and forcibly converted large parts of the Population and revoked political autonomy for many groups.

There are also descendants of ethnic Greeks ( Thrace, orginally also in Northern Macedonia), Bulgarians, South Slavs (Bosnia,also in Croatia) who practice Islam.

Almost all Turks are the descendants of Ethnic Greeks or Ethnic Armenians, for example about 1/4 Turks have at least 1 Armenian Grandparent, and about 17% ish of their genes are actually from Central Asian, in fact they are more South Asian than Central Asian.
 
As you can clearly see the Ottomans had negligible influence on the demographics and culture of the contemporary Balkans. Because we all know that a conquest only happens if it has massive demographic effects visible up to the present day. Just look at Indonesia, they speak Dutch and are all Calvinists! The fact that the Ottomans established civil governments in these Balkan territories means nothing, it wasn't conquest it was super-vassalage.

I don’t know about the rest of the Balkans but the Ottomans had a huge and lasting impact on the demographics and culture of Croatia and Bosnia. Refuges from Bosina, Herzegovina, Montenegro, Serbia and even Albania escaping the Ottomans flooded Croatia and Dalmatia creating tectonic changes to language (Chakavian pushed to the coast and islands, Kajkavian pushed to north west Croatia, both supplemented by Shtokavian), religion (areas that were majority adherents to the Bosnian Church turned Muslim, while areas in western Bosnia and parts of Croatia that were Catholic gained Orthodox majority) and culture (introduction of Turkish loan words, dress, cuisine, oriental music that makes my ears bleed every time I hear it).

The narrative of Turkish oppression is very much overplayed by the successor states (as Louis de Bernieres wrote "in fact, the Turks weren't as bad as the Turks"). Of course, the Turks did oppress the population of the Balkans to a degree, as an Early Modern ruling class stealing the agricultural surplus was their raison d'être. But the ethnic and religious aspects of this are overplayed, yes, a few monasteries got sacked, there was the infidel tax and some people in Christian milets had to become janissaries with little choice in the matter. Small potatoes compared to the wars of religion in the rest of Europe, and lets remember when Catholics were emancipated in England, 1829!

I would say that the blood taxes in children (that resulted in parents chopping off a finger or two from their children to prevent them from being taken) and kidnapping of women (that resulted in girls getting tattoos that the Turks for some reason found disgusting) is pretty nasty. Only all out genocide seems worse (something the Ottomans have been accused of also, right?) There is a reason why the Turks are disliked so much in the Balkans even to this day (except maybe by the Muslims).
 
I think the easiest way to answer this question is to ask: Do you think Skanderberg's forces felt conquered post defeat?

To which I think the simplest answer is yes, now merely apply that to everyone up to Hungary, and you have your answer. The fact that few people are still Muslim has little to do with the basic fact that the Ottomans at one point or another conquered the Balkans, furthermore the fact they couldn't hold it doesn't mean they didn't conquer it. If you were to tell a Zulu or an Indian that they weren't conquered by the British because they aren't Anglican, and don't speak English, they would think you are retarded. The same is true of the Balkans, fundamentally the Ottomans entered the Balkans and forcibly converted large parts of the Population and revoked political autonomy for many groups.



Almost all Turks are the descendants of Ethnic Greeks or Ethnic Armenians, for example about 1/4 Turks have at least 1 Armenian Grandparent, and about 17% ish of their genes are actually from Central Asian, in fact they are more South Asian than Central Asian.
Also many are Kurdish as well.
 
blood taxes in children (that resulted in parents chopping off a finger or two from their children to prevent them from being taken) and kidnapping of women (that resulted in girls getting tattoos that the Turks for some reason found disgusting) is pretty nasty.
On the other hand, there were many families (even Muslim ones!) that actively sought out the devshirme, even bribing Ottoman officials so their sons would be chosen over their more athletic neighbors. Stories would have spread about what devshirme boys could do for their families back home if they succeeded in Constantinople -- Mimar Sinan saved his entire home village (of Armenian Christians) from being deported to Cyprus, for example.

Don't get me wrong, the devshirme is far from ethical, but I do certainly think it's far preferable to the Spanish treatment of their conquered enemies.
 

Brunaburh

Gone Fishin'
I would say that the blood taxes in children (that resulted in parents chopping off a finger or two from their children to prevent them from being taken) and kidnapping of women (that resulted in girls getting tattoos that the Turks for some reason found disgusting) is pretty nasty. Only all out genocide seems worse (something the Ottomans have been accused of also, right?) There is a reason why the Turks are disliked so much in the Balkans even to this day (except maybe by the Muslims).

The genocide and mass-killing at the end of the Ottoman period and beginning of the Republican era was not in the Balkans, but I would accept the point that these were exceptionally brutal episodes. In terms of what you speak of, this is more or less what early modern states did to their own populations too. Russia and Britain had forced conscription similar to that of Janissaries, the treatment of poor women in this time was appalling, and powerless women were systematically sexually controlled and abused by powerful men in all contemporary societies. What other Europeans did to colonized peoples was often much, much, worse.
 
On the other hand, there were many families (even Muslim ones!) that actively sought out the devshirme, even bribing Ottoman officials so their sons would be chosen over their more athletic neighbors. Stories would have spread about what devshirme boys could do for their families back home if they succeeded in Constantinople -- Mimar Sinan saved his entire home village (of Armenian Christians) from being deported to Cyprus, for example.

Don't get me wrong, the devshirme is far from ethical, but I do certainly think it's far preferable to the Spanish treatment of their conquered enemies.

Sure, there is always someone willing to work for the other side for their personal gain. I can understand this. It's the forced abduction of non-Muslim children by the Ottoman state to train them into elite soldiers is what bothers me. What the Spanish did in their colonies does not absolve the Ottoman Empire in their wrongdoings.

The genocide and mass-killing at the end of the Ottoman period and beginning of the Republican era was not in the Balkans, but I would accept the point that these were exceptionally brutal episodes. In terms of what you speak of, this is more or less what early modern states did to their own populations too. Russia and Britain had forced conscription similar to that of Janissaries, the treatment of poor women in this time was appalling, and powerless women were systematically sexually controlled and abused by powerful men in all contemporary societies. What other Europeans did to colonized peoples was often much, much, worse.

Genocide no, but mass killings were present in the Balkans (Batak and Stara Zagora massacres come to mind). You bet they were brutal episodes. People in the Balkans still remember them and they happened so long ago.
I have no idea that Russia or Britain have forcibly taken children to be trained as soldiers, at least on the scale the Ottoman Empire did. Could you please send me link were I can find this information? It could be useful for further conversations.
 
What the Spanish did in their colonies does not absolve the Ottoman Empire in their wrongdoings.
Correct, but it's worth putting the Ottomans in context. The Ottomans committed heinous acts, but so did every other Early Modern empire.

People in the Balkans still remember them and they happened so long ago.
I suspect they would be remembered far less had the Balkans still been part of the Ottoman empire.
 
Sure, there is always someone willing to work for the other side for their personal gain. I can understand this. It's the forced abduction of non-Muslim children by the Ottoman state to train them into elite soldiers is what bothers me. What the Spanish did in their colonies does not absolve the Ottoman Empire in their wrongdoings.



Genocide no, but mass killings were present in the Balkans (Batak and Stara Zagora massacres come to mind). You bet they were brutal episodes. People in the Balkans still remember them and they happened so long ago.
I have no idea that Russia or Britain have forcibly taken children to be trained as soldiers, at least on the scale the Ottoman Empire did. Could you please send me link were I can find this information? It could be useful for further conversations.

There were attempts of converting the Tatars of Kazan by abducting the Tatar Children and baptize them.

And there are abduction of people by British as well namely the Slave trade. There are more slaves taken to America by the British than the Ottomans ever taking kids in the Janissary Corps.

I honestly am surprised that people view the Ottomans as absolute evil considering that some states did more horrible things. And I am not even talking about the Inquisition...
 
Correct, but it's worth putting the Ottomans in context. The Ottomans committed heinous acts, but so did every other Early Modern empire.


I suspect they would be remembered far less had the Balkans still been part of the Ottoman empire.

People tend to become anachronistic with the Ottomans comparing todays standards or 19th century standards with early Ottoman era. When it comes to the Spanish for example they compare it at the same era and act like it was the behavior of that era... I mean, dafuq? Or do I see it wrong..?

Having a historical enemy unites the people more. Half of Serbia's history might be about wars with the Turks. The failure of those states compared with Western Europe were also blamed on the Ottoman rule.
 

Brunaburh

Gone Fishin'
Sure, there is always someone willing to work for the other side for their personal gain. I can understand this. It's the forced abduction of non-Muslim children by the Ottoman state to train them into elite soldiers is what bothers me. What the Spanish did in their colonies does not absolve the Ottoman Empire in their wrongdoings.



Genocide no, but mass killings were present in the Balkans (Batak and Stara Zagora massacres come to mind). You bet they were brutal episodes. People in the Balkans still remember them and they happened so long ago.
I have no idea that Russia or Britain have forcibly taken children to be trained as soldiers, at least on the scale the Ottoman Empire did. Could you please send me link were I can find this information? It could be useful for further conversations.

The British navy impressed innocent men and boys into naval service, as well as transporting them as slaves to the Americas and Australasia for minor criminal offences. Russian serf families were obliged to provide sons for military, who were impressed for terms of 25 years. I don't see a great advantage of the one system over the other, and has been pointed out, the boys taken to the court had much better life chances than those who stayed behind. To be honest, I'd say the lot of an Orthodox peasant in the Ottoman Empire was better than that of one in Russia.
 
The British navy impressed innocent men and boys into naval service, as well as transporting them as slaves to the Americas and Australasia for minor criminal offences. Russian serf families were obliged to provide sons for military, who were impressed for terms of 25 years. I don't see a great advantage of the one system over the other, and has been pointed out, the boys taken to the court had much better life chances than those who stayed behind. To be honest, I'd say the lot of an Orthodox peasant in the Ottoman Empire was better than that of one in Russia.

Considering those 'kidnapped' children in the Corps had a chance to become the second man in the empire aka Grand Vizier they were to say better off in the Empire. For its time of course.
 
Wow a thread on this website that isn't about the ottoman empire being the most evil thing in existence, oppressive, should be split between Armenia and greece cause reasons. The balkans was the most advanced place on the planet pre-ottoman, and that the greeks can always defeat the ottomans in war.

Britain starves millions to death in india, no one cares.

Portuguese and Spain slave trade speaks enough.

French Colonial rule.

Belgium in the congo.

While the ottomans no doubt did shitty things, its hard to ignore the shitty stuff other people did aswell plus the hypocracy.
The ottomans did cause problems for the balkans yet people refuse to recognise the problems the other europeans caused to africa and Asia.
The ottomans feel like the external boogy man in all history as they can be used as a punching bag easily, as to explain problems.
 
Wow a thread on this website that isn't about the ottoman empire being the most evil thing in existence, oppressive, should be split between Armenia and greece cause reasons.
Huh? This site is actually fairly objective wrt the Ottomans, especially compared to the rest of the English-language Internet (I blame Paradox games, tbh).
 
Huh? This site is actually fairly objective wrt the Ottomans, especially compared to the rest of the English-language Internet (I blame Paradox games, tbh).
True much more recently definitely, and this thread is a good example their is no circle jerk about either side here.

Maybe its me with bad luck but every time i find something about ottomans or turks its always bad. Even shit that isn't about the ottoman or their neighbour's they are absolutely getting fucked for reasons (read a timeline about the Sweden joins the crimean war for some reason the ottomans get partitioned by austria, Bulgaria and Greece for reasons)
Might of been a while ago but their was a ton of screw the ottomans, serbia, greece and armenia is the da best stuff going around.
 
I suspect they would be remembered far less had the Balkans still been part of the Ottoman empire.

Well I think 500 years under the Ottomans was enough of a time frame for them to forget, but they didn't. Obviously the Ottoman rule wasn't that cushy.

There were attempts of converting the Tatars of Kazan by abducting the Tatar Children and baptize them.
And there are abduction of people by British as well namely the Slave trade. There are more slaves taken to America by the British than the Ottomans ever taking kids in the Janissary Corps.
I honestly am surprised that people view the Ottomans as absolute evil considering that some states did more horrible things. And I am not even talking about the Inquisition...

Ok all that is bad, there is no doubt about it. But just because someone else did terrible things it didn't make it alright for the Ottomans to do it. The British Empire doesn't have a spit perfect reputation in the world, it is actually despised by many believe it or not. Same for the Ottoman Empire. In the Balkans they are on the same level as the Borgs in Star Trek, because they felt a lot of their crap on their skin. What is so difficult to understand?

People tend to become anachronistic with the Ottomans comparing todays standards or 19th century standards with early Ottoman era. When it comes to the Spanish for example they compare it at the same era and act like it was the behavior of that era... I mean, dafuq? Or do I see it wrong..?

I can agree with you on this, but lets not kid ourselves. The then contemporary view of the early Ottoman rule wasn't rosy either. The then contemporary view of 19th century Ottoman empire was also bad. If any empire needed to hire a PR agency it was the Ottomans.

Now I feel like I derided this thread into ''how bad were the Ottomans compared to the other Empires'' and that was not my intention. I apologize for that.
 
Last edited:
There were attempts of converting the Tatars of Kazan by abducting the Tatar Children and baptize them.

And there are abduction of people by British as well namely the Slave trade. There are more slaves taken to America by the British than the Ottomans ever taking kids in the Janissary Corps.

I honestly am surprised that people view the Ottomans as absolute evil considering that some states did more horrible things. And I am not even talking about the Inquisition...
The inquisition was one of the mildest thing the Spanish Empire has ever done, at least compared to the encomienda, transatlantic slavery, expulsions etc.
 
Top